James 5:12 says, "But above all, my brothers, do not swear, either by heaven or by earth or with any other oath, but let your “Yes” mean “Yes” and your “No” mean “No,” that you may not incur condemnation."

Jesus was against oath-swearing (Mt 5:33-37), and his disciples echoed this call. The surprising thing here is that James, who rails against partiality, lack of wisdom, injustice, gossip, bad behavior, etc, introduces the issue of oaths with "But above all... do not swear."

For Jesus, echoed by James, the most important aspect of the life with God is that one fear God. As Ecclesiastes 12:13-14 puts it: "The end of the matter; all has been heard. Fear God, and keep his commandments; for this is the whole duty of man. For God will bring every deed into judgment, with[d] every secret thing, whether good or evil."

We fear God because He is truth, which means He is a judge to us before he is anything else. This is the foundational truth about God, that we know we will answer for our lives--our thoughts and actions. If we are to be judged, then we should conduct ourselves accordingly. To swear by heaven, that is, to declare ourselves as a source of truth, is to boldly proclaim one's righteousness and standing in God's presence. It is to reduce the eternal and the holy to the triviality of the present age.

So when James says, "But above all . . . do not swear," he means that above all, regard God as holy and understand that we are striving for that holiness without which we will not see the Lord.

Image: Holy Men (5th/6th Century Egypt)

In both the Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 5-7) and the Lukan Sermon on the Plain (Luke 6), Jesus proclaims the Beatitudes. These are statements that are of the form "Blessed are ___ for they/you shall ___." In Matthew, Jesus says, "Blessed are they who hunger and thirst for righteousness, for they shall be filled." So what does it mean to hunger and thirst for righteousness?

First, we have to ask what all these words mean. For instance, what is righteousness? Whatever it is, it is the thing that one ought to hunger and thirst for and that which one is filled with. It is the analogue of food. Hunger is the body's signal that indicates when our body needs fuel or sustenance but doesn't have it yet. It is a signal of lack of and desire for a very specific thing.

In John 4:34, Jesus says, "my food is to do the will of him who sent me and to complete his work." Is this the righteousness that we should hunger and thirst for? If it is, then hungering and thirsting for righteousness is earnestly desiring to do the will of God and completing his work. But we note that hunger and thirst are responses and involuntary. Perhaps, then, to hunger and thirst for righteousness is to recognize that our soul's desperate desire to do God's will and complete his work.

Then we turn to Luke 6:21 "Blessed are you who hunger now." A very different beatitude. There's nothing spiritualized about this one. The blessedness is associated with lack of nourishment in the present age--a condition of not having the nourishment one needs. So, how are hunger and thirsting for righteousness and just hungering and thirsting the same or equivalent? Jesus invokes blessedness upon both. It is obvious to see how beatitude comes to those who hunger and thirst for righteousness. But why does beatitude automatically accrue to those who are hungry for food?

Food is the answer to an involuntary response to bodily need/deficit. Righteousness is the answer to an involuntary response to a spiritual lack. In both cases, there is a lack that triggers a need that can only be fulfilled by someone external to us. Satisfying this need, in either case, brings life. In both cases, one recognizes our inadequacy in the presence of what sustains us, recognizing that all good gifts ultimately come from God. So whether we hunger and thirst for righteousness or simply hunger and thirst, we exalt God.

In John 4:15, the Samaritan woman asks for the water that will satisfy her thirst and keep her from returning to the well. But what Jesus had offered was not just water but an eternal spring of life-giving water. To understand what Jesus had offered, she had to be thirsty and want to solve permanently her physical thirst, and only then could she appreciate the eternal life and the message of worshipping God in Spirit and in truth. So maybe to hunger and thirst after righteousness, we do have to experience actual physical hunger and learn from that.

Let's stipulate the following: Jesus died for all our sins (past and future) and as a result, you're not going to Hell, or whatever you want to call the eternal torture chamber. So, if certain "salvation" were guaranteed (where salvation here means no Hell), then why might anyone want to be Christian? What would be the point of submitting one's life to Jesus and living with the constraints Jesus demands?

It seems that escape from eternal Hell, can serve as a useful motivator. But isn't that kind of Christianity hollow at its core? The gratitude one might feel for God in that case is as a savior from Hell.

Isn't it better that one's Christianity, not be about escaping Hell, but about attaining God? To return to paradise, the Garden of Eden, free of the shame that came from disobedience. In this version of the Christian journey, Hell is not the concern. Rather, it is the search for the pearl of great price that defines one's motivation for the life of constraint. God is the goal, not escaping Hell.

"Expulsion of Adam and Eve from Paradise" by Benjamin West 1779

In Albert Camus' The Plague, there is an interesting discussion between the protagonist, Dr. Rieux, and another character, Jean Tarrou, about God and suffering. Their town has been quarantined because of the plague. At the start of the plague, a Jesuit priest, Fr. Paneloux, preaches a fiery sermon about God's wrath and his justice. The priest is clear about why there is a plague and what the response of the people ought to be.

Dr. Rieux and Jean Tarrou use the occasion of the sermon to ask the question about God. They say many things of interest. However, one thing that stands out is this quote:

"After all," the doctor repeated, then hesitated again, fixing his eyes on Tarrou, "It's something that a man of your sort can understand most likely, but since the order of the world is shaped by death, mightn't it be better for God if we refuse to believe in Him and struggle with all our might against death, without raising our eyes toward the heaven where He sits in silence?"

It is fascinating that anyone could think it would be better for God if we refuse to believe in Him. Why? For the doctor, not believing in God is not for intellectual reasons or reasons of impiety. It's because the "order of the world is shaped by death." That is, we all die, are dying, and have, in a sense, already died, since death is a certainty. In a world shaped by death, we're bound by a single overwhelming mission: to fight against death. Even Jesus is consumed in the battle against death (Heb 5:7). So, since we all die and are obligated to fight against death, then we must fight whether God joins in the fight or not. For the doctor, God is absent. He is silent. Ultimately, for him, it doesn't matter then if we believe in Him or not; the task of evil and suffering is our task to solve.

Now, one might say that the motivation to fight evil comes from God or belief in God. But both men in the discussion argue to the contrary. They both, in their own respective ways, have immersed themselves in the fight against the plague, which means certain death. Yet, sans belief in God, they throw themselves into service to humanity at great possible cost and with no hint of faith in God. But then the logic is this. If it's God's will that we all live full, flourishing lives, then won't fighting against evil and suffering help God achieve His aims? Even if accomplished by atheistic instruments? Dr. Rieux and Jean Tarrou would say, yes.

Could the believer in God convince these men otherwise? Maybe, but why would we? If God is a distraction for the nonbeliever fighting evil, then should not the work of God (fighting evil/death) continue for them without belief in God? It all raises the questions for believers in Christ: What specific, unique thing does faith in Christ add to the fight against evil?

Whenever I ask myself this question, the response I settle on is something like this: it doesn't matter.

Mark 9: 38-41
"38 John said to him, ‘Teacher, we saw someone casting out demons in your name, and we tried to stop him, because he was not following us.’ 39 But Jesus said, ‘Do not stop him; for no one who does a deed of power in my name will be able soon afterwards to speak evil of me. 40 Whoever is not against us is for us. 41 For truly I tell you, whoever gives you a cup of water to drink because you bear the name of Christ will by no means lose the reward."

Jesus instructs us in the Lord's Prayer to petition for God's kingdom to come and for deliverance from evil. We can't worry about what others are called to do. We must focus on what we are called to do: be holy, fear God, love God, love neighbor. Fighting evil and suffering is a human task. Whether God sits silent in heaven or is raging torrent here on earth in our lives, doesn't matter. We see what needs to be done and we do it.

In John, Jesus gives a new commandment to love each other as he loved his disciples. It's a really nice commandment, but the problem is, why exactly is this different from love God and love your neighbor? What's the newness in the former versus the latter?

Here's the text in John 13:34-35
"34 A new commandment I give to you, that you love one another; even as I have loved you, that you also love one another. 35 By this all men will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another."



(Image: The Good Samaritan Domenico Fetti 1618-1622)

​Compare with Luke 10:27
"He answered, “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your strength, and with all your mind; and your neighbor as yourself.”"

Jesus in the Luke verses summarizes the Mosaic law as essentially love of God and love of neighbor. He then gives the Good Samaritan story (Lk 10:25-37). In that story, a man is robbed on the road between Jerusalem and Jericho. He is beaten and left to die. At separate times, a priest and a Levite walk by but do not help the man. Then a Samaritan, who is a cultural enemy of the Jews, sees the man, has compassion, risks his life, and saves the man. He even promises an innkeeper that he will return and settle up any further debts incurred by the recovering victim. Jesus then says to go and do likewise.

This kind of love seems pretty comprehensive. Why is this not enough? Why do we need a new commandment of love? Maybe one might say that self-sacrifice is the distinctively Christian element and thus new. I agree with this, although it's not clear how this is not present as such in the Good Samaritan story. The Samaritan risks his own life by stopping to help the victim. That act seems self-sacrificial.

Back to the question of what is new about Jesus' commandment. The command to love each other goes beyond love of neighbor, so admirably displayed by the Good Samaritan. Jesus is not speaking about love of neighbor, but love of Christian family--"Love one another." So if we project "love one another" into the Good Samaritan story, what else would the Samaritan have done to meet the threshold of this new commandment? 

Let's say we asked the Samaritan before his trip, "If you come across a man beaten and half-dead on the dangerous road to Jericho, would you stop to help him, even at great risk to yourself?" The Samaritan's answer would be yes. He passes the love your neighbor test. Now the love-one-another test, "Mr. Samaritan, a man is going to be beaten to within an inch of his life. Would you take his place and be the victim?" Yes, the Samaritan might do this, but by the Law, he is not required to. The Christian, though, is commanded to sacrifice to this extent for a Christian brother or sister.